[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H923-H929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is an honor
to come before the House once again. We have finished our work for the
week, and a lot has happened, a lot has been said. As you know, the 30-
Something Working Group, Mr. Murphy, and I are here today, my good
friend from Connecticut. We are going to talk about some of the issues
that have been discussed over the last 24 hours on the floor, some of
the votes that we have taken, even as it relates to last week, some of
the challenges that are facing the country.
I know there will be other Members of the 30-Something Working Group
[[Page H924]]
that may be joining us this afternoon. I can tell you as we continue to
move forward in this 110th Congress, there is a lot that the American
people have to be proud of at some level of accomplishment as it
relates to issues that are truly facing the American people.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to hear from the
President of the United States. Some say that there was some issues
that he brought to the table that are not new. He has mentioned some of
these issues before. Alternative fuel, the issue of Iraq, talking about
health care, still holding onto the issue of savings accounts that have
been proposed in past State of the Unions but haven't been acted upon
to even bring about real changes as relates to health care.
The President talked about earmarks last night, Mr. Speaker. But it
is interesting under the Republican-controlled Congress, that is when
the earmarks were out of control. And it was under his watch and his
party's watch. And now the President wants to be the chief, I guess,
the chief person who says who gets an earmark and who does not get an
earmark. Earmark reform was a part of the Democratic reform package,
and was not even really given serious consideration until the Democrats
took control of the Congress.
The glaring issue as it relates to Iraq, and Mr. Murphy and I and Mr.
Ryan were talking about this just yesterday, it is obvious that the
American people voted for change in the last election, and that the
President continues to march in the opposite direction of the American
people. The American people are ready to go in a new direction. The
President seems like he is ready to go and continue to keep going in
the old direction.
The new direction, redeployment of troops, working in a diplomatic
way, following some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations of talking
with Iran and Syria, and I would even add Turkey if we want to look at
a diplomatic resolution to what is happening in the Middle East, making
sure that our troops are safe, making sure that we take the training
wheels off the Iraqi Government train, redeploy, diplomatic mission.
The President seems to think that the answer is to have an escalation
in troops. The American people are looking for escalation in the truth,
not the troops. And also the President has spoken of giving him a
chance for his plan to work. Well, I can tell you that the American
people have given the President a lot of latitude as it relates to
Iraq. I think it is important, I take from Senator Warner's, and I can
talk, I have a number of quotes here on the escalation of troops from
Senator Warner, the former chairman, who is a Republican, the former
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
I can also take from our colleagues who spoke after the President
spoke yesterday and prior to his speech yesterday, that contradict or
are going in a new direction as it relates to Iraq and what the
American people called for, versus what they did not call for, more of
the same.
{time} 1600
So hopefully, Mr. Murphy, we will talk a little bit about some of
this today.
There are some other issues, as it relates to the State of the Union
speech, that we can get into, but I think it is important, we spent a
lot of time yesterday talking about bipartisanship, we spent a lot of
time yesterday saying the President had an opportunity, and we hoped
that he would come and share with us, hold up issues such as the
minimum wage that we passed overwhelmingly on this floor that he is
ready to sign. We thought that he would come to the floor saying, I
want to work with the leaders here in the House on the minority and
majority side on passing real health care on behalf of millions of
Americans that are without health care. Those things did not come out.
I can say that the Americans, Mr. Speaker, that were pointed out
yesterday in the gallery by the President, well-noted heroes and ``she-
roes'' that were sitting up there, this State of the Union was about a
state of the Union, and I can tell you, hearing last night's speech, we
have a lot of work ahead of us, Democrats and Republicans. So I am
excited about that opportunity.
I yield to my good friend, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Mr. Meek.
It is an honor to be standing in the traditional place of Mr. Ryan
today, and I will attempt to equal at least half of his eloquence on
this floor.
You are right, I think there are a lot of missing pieces from that
speech last night. It was my first opportunity to sit and listen to a
Presidential State of the Union, and you couldn't help but leave
disappointed. There were a lot of promises that I think the American
people were looking to be fulfilled in that speech.
Mr. Meek, I think you were exactly right when you talked about a
sense of bipartisanship, which I think is infectious in this building
right now due to the first 100-hours agenda that, as we know, drew
bipartisan support, on average 60 Members of the other aisle supporting
each piece of that 100-hours agenda. That bipartisanship seems to be
lost when it comes to the issue of Iraq.
It doesn't go without note that since the President had unveiled his
plan to escalate this war, to put another 21,000 brave men and women in
harm's way to do a job that Colin Powell and others will tell you
100,000 people can't do.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, will you yield for a moment?
I was kind of paying attention to the room last night when the
President said, ``Give my plan a chance to work.'' Now, if you kind of
look on the gauge of who stands up for that or who claps for it, I can
tell you that it was lukewarm on the Republican side, and definitely
over here on the Democratic side it was more of the same.
I mean, you made it to Congress, I made it back to Congress with a
message that we were going to move in a new direction. And I believe
that we will have a majority, and I am not just talking about a
Democratic majority, if it comes down to a question, I know they had
some action on the other side of the Capitol dome today, on this very
issue of the escalation of the troops, and we have quotes here that
will be on the 30-Something Web site I know, hopefully, by the end of
the week of Senators, Representatives and others that have said just
the contrary to what the President said last night. So I believe that
there is some hope on the Iraq issue.
Now, the Republican leadership is not necessarily there where we need
them to be. And you heard me say once before that I am not upset with
certain Members that are not following the will and the desire of the
American people. The good thing about the U.S. House of Representatives
is we are all up for reelection in 23, 24 months from now, and we have
to be accountable. And if Members want to follow leadership, or whoever
they think that is going to share with them how they should vote and
what they should stand for on all these different issues, then I think
it is important that they realize that we are going to have an
election, and that you have got to go home, you have to explain why you
voted for more of the same.
I believe that we are getting to a head here. And the good thing
about being in the majority is that we have the opportunity, we used to
give speeches on this floor, Mr. Murphy, saying if we are blessed
enough to have the opportunity to be in the majority to lead the
American agenda, the American people, everyday Americans who wants
accountability and who pray and look for bipartisanship, look for
leadership, we will give it to them, and that is what we are going to
have a chance to do.
Thank you for yielding. I just wanted to point that out because that
was an observation. And while I am speaking, if you want, I will yield
to you so that we can drive this home, because we want to break this
down because we don't want Members to go back to their districts and
say, you know, I didn't understand that. We want individuals to be able
to pull the Congressional Record and say, wow, how couldn't you
understand it; it was mentioned 10 or 12 times in a given day on the
reason why we were doing what we did.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Meek, you are very right. And I am
glad those quotes are going to be on the 30-Something Web site because
it really is a cross-section of this Chamber, the people who have been
really
[[Page H925]]
speaking out and asking the President to revisit this plan to escalate
the war. You have dozens of Republicans, more every day, that are
coming out and suggesting that there has got to be a plan C, right?
Plan A we know didn't work; we are now debating plan B, which everyone
from foreign policy experts to the President's own military advisors
suggest won't work.
And we hope that some of the folks watching us on C-SPAN right now
caught some of the hearings, Mr. Meek, before the Armed Services
Committees and other relevant committees because you have heard some
remarkable testimony from the President's own military leaders
expressing grave doubts about this plan to put new troops into Iraq and
into Baghdad.
So we have got both sides of the aisle coming together and saying,
listen, let's sit down and talk about plan C, because that is what this
is about. This is not about just standing up here in front of TV
cameras and telling people the President's plan doesn't work; it has
got to be about setting another way. And there are other ways. We can
talk about the redeployment of troops. We can talk about starting to
rebuild our credibility in the world.
The President talked last night, Mr. Meek, about the unification of
the world's communities around the President's strategy. Well, that
certainty doesn't comport with reality, it doesn't comport with what we
are seeing; but it doesn't mean that the opportunity is lost, it
doesn't mean that we still can't go back to the world community and
say, let's together build a new strategy to get ourselves out of Iraq
in a way that leaves that country as stable as we can.
And, Mr. Meek, I don't know about you, but I think we can still do
that. And I am actually interested. The President is going to speak to
our issues conference in a week and a half, and I know there is some
grumbling about that, but I am actually looking forward to him coming
to us so that we might be able to have another chance to persuade him
to work with both sides of the aisle here on this floor to come up with
a new strategy that will allow us to lend stability to that country and
rebuild the world community, and do it in a way that doesn't put more
and more troops of ours in harm's way. And I know, Mr. Meek, of other
Members who have been here much longer than I believe that we can do
that together.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We can do it together. And I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, that it can be done.
Let's just put it this way: It is the new direction versus more of
the same. There are Members of Congress that are saying that they are
on board on the new direction. There are troops in Iraq that are saying
that they are on board for a new direction. And I can tell you from 4
years on the Armed Services Committee that looking in the eyes of the
commanders when they come, they are also looking for a new direction.
And even, Mr. Speaker, when the President puts forth this Iraq Study
Group that brought forth recommendations on the direction we should
move in, the President says, thank you very much for your input, I
appointed you, bipartisan commission, but we are going to send new
troops to Iraq, and that is the answer.
I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but I will
say that the President sent the 20,000 additional troops before we had
an opportunity to really look at what is happening or what has been
happening in the time that our committee rooms have sat with the lights
off. We didn't have hearings in the 109th Congress. Nancy Pelosi wasn't
Speaker of the House. The will and the desire wasn't there to find out
what is happening with all the supplemental money that we have given
towards Iraq and Afghanistan and other issues that we paid for that
didn't go through the regular budget process.
Now we are going to have an opportunity, hopefully, in speaking with
Mr. Murtha, who is the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Defense.
He is asking questions. They are having hearings. Brass and suits
together are coming in to answer the tough questions about, well, what
happened to the money we have already given you?
When you look at companies like--we talked about Halliburton, and we
talked about some of these other companies that have run away with
these dollars, we talked about the U.S. troops that are being there,
let's talk about the mercenaries that are there. Let's talk about the
hired individuals that are there to carry out missions that are not
wearing a U.S. flag on their shoulders, but they are contractors to
carry out security missions for convoys. There are a number of those
individuals that are dying, and they are not being counted in the troop
calculation. And many of those individuals, Mr. Speaker, are former
members of our military Armed Forces. I know for a fact that some of
these companies are providing even better incentives, much greater,
sometimes twice that our men and women are earning in uniform. So after
their time is up, as we give the military their ability, because so
many individuals have been deployed two and three times, and when their
time is up as it relates to their service, to get them to reenlist we
incentivize them not only through monetary means, but also the ability
to move up the ladder.
At the same time you have the private sector that understands that
same philosophy, Mr. Speaker and Members, and they are incentivizing
them to go into the private side of it. And these individuals are
securing the convoys, securing some of the facilities that are there,
carrying out some missions. And they are replacing, because we talk
about the coalition, if you want to break that down, I mean, we have
U.S. men and women in uniform, and then U.S. contractors. It is not
Great Britain, it is not some of the other folks that people are
talking about, the coalition of the few, the United States of America
and U.S. contractors. Guess what? U.S. taxpayers are paying for that.
So I think it is important, the issues that we talked about.
I have Senator Warner here, I mentioned him earlier, the Republican
from Virginia. Basically he is saying after the speech last night, to
place our U.S. men in the middle of a fight between Sunnis and Shiites
is not the right time to do that.
You also have Chuck Hagel. Senator Hagel has also said, Republican,
has said that he thinks the speech that was given last night by the
President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this
country since Vietnam. If it is carried out, he would have to resist
it. He said, ``I will resist it.'' This is not what Democrats are
saying. People have heard what we had to say. Now we have Republicans
that have heard the voice of the American people that are saying, if I
am going to stay in the U.S. Congress, I am not appointed, I am
elected, if I am going to stay in the U.S. Congress, I have to follow
the will and the desire of my constituents and the American people.
I always say, Mr. Murphy, when we are elected from our districts, we
are federalized to represent an entire country and those that are in
harm's way. We are talking about training. We are talking about
tactical missions against terrorists or what have you, not everyday
street patrol, security patrol on the block. That is where our men and
women are losing.
We have been talking about training of the troops from the time that
we were in Baghdad, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, I am a witness to it,
I have been on the committee, we have had the testimony. Oh, we are
training them; and then all of a sudden we find out that the training
is not keeping up with the need. Well, we have military bases not only
in Mosul, but Tikrit, also in Baghdad and other spots throughout Iraq
where those troops can be trained right there.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, in going to Iraq within the next couple
of months, Mr. Murphy, I would love to have you join me if you haven't
gone already, to ask these tough questions on the issue of the training
issues because now it is under our watch. The American people have
empowered a majority of the Members who feel the way the American
people feel, that we need to take care of our mission in Iraq. I am
pretty sure we will have some presence of troops there for some time,
but not at these levels, not at the level to where that is not an issue
of redeployment.
Mr. Murphy, I hate to get preachy on this, but the President has said
that is up to another President to deal with, another administration to
deal with, I am not going to do it. Well, like our
[[Page H926]]
good friend Senator Webb said last night, if he doesn't want to take
the leadership way, then we are going to have to show him the way, the
Congress.
{time} 1615
And the good thing about it, Mr. Speaker, it will be in a bipartisan
way. It won't be just Democrats. It will be Democrats and Republicans,
and I welcome that bipartisan spirit
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Meek is very right. It is
going to be in a bipartisan way. And there are moments when maybe
public opinion and things you hear back in the district don't always
match up with maybe the things that you hear from the experts on that
particular issue. That is inevitable in public service. And there are
choices to be made, and inevitably your obligation in the end is to
side with the people that you represent.
But on this issue there is a growing hegemony of opinion that backs
up public opinion within the military community. Mr. Meek quoted some
of the leaders of both parties who have come out against this plan for
escalation, but the military has come out against this plan as well.
Let me just give a quick quote of Colonel Paul Hughes, who was the
first person that was put in charge of strategic planning of the U.S.
occupation in Baghdad, the first person on the ground to start planning
on how we were going to keep Baghdad stable. We obviously failed pretty
miserably in that mission, but here is what he said about the
President's plan to escalate this war. He said: ``Just sending more
troops to Baghdad is like pouring more water in the sands of Al Anbar.
It's going to disappear without accomplishing anything.''
And that is what we have heard over and over again. There may be a
number of troops that you could put into Baghdad or, lest we forget,
the 12 other, 11 other major areas of conflict in Iraq. There might be
a number, but it certainly isn't 21,000. And the President in his
speech talked about not only using those troops to secure Baghdad but
also using them to secure Al Anbar Province, also trying to do
increased training, also trying to better secure the borders around
Iraq to prevent the insurgents from coming in. Twenty-one thousand
troops can't do that, and what ends up happening, as many of our
military experts have told us over and over again, is it just puts
those men and women in even graver danger. That is an opinion shared
not just by Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle but by the
military community as well.
And Mr. Meek talked about the oversight that is going to happen here
in terms of our strategy going forward. And I think that these hearings
have been so valuable because I think they educate the American public
and educate all of us about our options going forward. But the
oversight also has to be about how we conduct ourselves so far, because
if there was any faith in our ability to manage this war and manage the
reconstruction, then maybe we would look a little bit differently upon
the President's proposal.
But the fact is, and this number startled me, we have $8.8 billion of
money, Mr. Meek, of money that is unaccounted for by the Coalition
Provisional Authority, $8.8 billion that we can't even explain where it
went. That is about enough money to run the State of Connecticut for an
entire year. And that is not the money we spent; that is the money we
can't find anymore.
Mr. Meek served on the Armed Services Committee. I am going to get
the opportunity to serve on the Government Reform Committee under Mr.
Waxman of California, and our focus there is going to be on that waste,
fraud, and abuse that has happened within our military spending in
Iraq. And it is important not just because of taxpayer dollars and
because we were all sent here to make sure that every hard-earned
dollar that our taxpayers send to Washington gets spent effectively,
but it is important because it educates us on the inefficiency and the
blundering in a lot of places that has happened in the conduct of this
war and the conduct of the reconstruction. And there are a myriad of
reasons why we should start listening to people like Mr. Murtha and
others who are counseling us to redeploy our forces and to
significantly draw down the number of troops we have there very soon.
There are a number of reasons why we should take those arguments
seriously and why many of us support bringing a large number of our
troops home very soon.
But at the top of that list is the fact that the money we are
spending there, even beyond the philosophy, just when you are talking
about the money, the money isn't being spent to make that country
safer, to rebuild that country. That money is being lost, and as you
said, Mr. Meek, through the Speaker, much of that money we are now
finding out actually finds its way into the hands of the very people
that we are fighting in Iraq. We can't account for it, and thus it
finds its way into the hands of the insurgents who are attacking the
convoys, who are taking the oil that is being produced there, and are,
in fact, using our own money to fight our own efforts there. So it is
our obligation, Mr. Meek, as you have said, not only to investigate,
not only to hold hearings into the strategy and the conduct of our
military operations but also to ask some questions about how all of our
taxpayer dollars are being spent there, because I think we are going to
find some very interesting things as we go forward in the next few
weeks.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Murphy, I would tell you right now, and
Members, I think it is important that we look at this for what it is
worth. If I was thinking of the Iraq issue solely as a political issue,
it would be let us go to the floor, Mr. Murphy, and as we talk, we meet
in the 30-something Working Group, let us not talk about the politics
of the Iraq issue. If this was about maintaining the majority as it
relates to politics, Mr. Speaker and Members, if this was about
capturing the White House, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't come to the floor
to talk about how we can work in a bipartisan way or come to the floor
and promote leadership. And I think it is important that we promote
leadership and move in this new direction and saying that we have to
deal with the big issue of Iraq.
I get members of local government and State government saying,
Congressman, I need more money in my city. You cut the COPS program.
Your Federal commitment as it relates to dollars for health care, for
security, for the environment, they are not there like they used to be
there. And we put parameters on ourselves because we told the American
people what we would do, pay-as-we-go philosophy or principles that we
already passed, and we have this war going on and we have young men and
young women. You have a lot of Reservists that are there that are 40,
50 years old, that are away from their families 15 months at a pop.
We come to Washington, D.C., most of us, our families are back in the
district and we are here and we are missing for about 4 or 5 days, but
we get to go back home at the end of the week, unlike those men and
women when they board that chartered flight. When they go over to
Kuwait or fly straight into Baghdad Airport or end up in Turkey at one
of our staging bases there, or end up somewhere else as they feed into
Iraq, they don't get the opportunity to say, Hey, kids, I am going to
be back in a couple of weeks. So I think it is important that we look
at this issue and treat it with the serious attention that it needs.
So for the President to come here last night and say, give me an
opportunity, give me an opportunity for my plan to work, well, let me
tell you something. It is almost like looking in the refrigerator and
seeing a carton of milk there and you take it out and open the carton
and you say, wow, that milk is sour; let me put it back in, maybe it
will be fresh tomorrow. That logic doesn't work. So it is important.
And I am glad to see some of our Republican colleagues and many of
our Democratic colleagues that are questioning the President, before he
can even leave the Chamber, about the speech, what he did not say in
the speech, that did November 7 happen? Did you hear it?
At the press conference after the November election, he said, you
know, I guess it did have something to do with Iraq. And some of the
tough talk ended. And I just want to say if I can commend the
President, he didn't come
[[Page H927]]
with the chest-beating that he usually does, but he did go back to
scaring the American people.
So I think it is important. There are issues we have to deal with.
But I am on record, Mr. Speaker and Members, on the issue of being a
leader, having the courage, and representing the people that have sent
us to Washington, DC to be able to govern in this government. Give our
men and women what they need in Iraq, but at the same time push forth
diplomatic talks. At the same time make sure that we start not only
discussion but redeployment of our troops more sooner than later,
because that message would not only get to the Iraqi Government but
also to the world community because we all play a role in this.
I see my good friend from Florida. We have served together, and she
is the chairwoman on the Rail Subcommittee under the Transportation
Committee. I am so glad she has joined us. Mr. Murphy has had so much
to say on this topic, and I am so glad you are here on the floor.
I yield to Ms. Brown from Florida.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you so much for your leadership,
Congressman from Miami, my good friend.
Let me just say I just finished with Gator Radio, and they asked me
the question, What is the role of Congress, what can we do about
stopping the President from expanding the war? And I was just on the
radio talking to the community and I have gotten some call back, what
can we do as a Congress?
I tell people all the time I did not vote for the war, but I support
the troops. And you have got your head in the lion's mouth. How do you
get it out? And the question is what can we do as a Congress to stop
the expansion? Because I think the speech that the President gave about
expanding it to 20,000 troops, that is not what he was saying. I think
he was saying that he doesn't need to come to this Congress to decide
that he is going into Iran or that he is going into other places, and
so there is clearly an expansion of the war. And what is our role as
Members of Congress when the President of the United States does not
respect the Congress and does not feel that we are coequal branches and
that he does not have to come to us to get permission to expand this
war? The students want to know. I want to know what to tell them.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Reclaiming my time, the bottom line is, Ms.
Brown, that we have the responsibility to govern here. The President is
the executive. He is the Commander in Chief. He was given the authority
by the Congress, even though there were many votes that weren't in the
affirmative of giving him that authority. He can send additional
troops.
There has been a discussion in the Senate. I haven't quite read the
briefing information on it or the report from the Senate session today.
I know there will be sessions in the House dealing with that. I talked
earlier in this Special Order about Mr. Murtha and what he is doing in
his committee as it relates to defense oversight. We know that there
will be a bill, a supplemental, I think a $99 billion bill coming to
the floor, which will be, from what I understand, the last supplemental
bill.
When we say ``supplemental,'' I want to make sure all the Members and
everyone understands this is basically what we call emergency funding
for the war. It is not necessarily in the budget. If it was in the
budget, it would go through a process just like you do with your
transportation dollars in your committee, giving authorization for
certain spending. This is just pretty much a wish list from the
administration that is given to the Appropriations Committee, and it
really doesn't go through the full process. I understand this is the
last supplemental that will come through for Iraq and Afghanistan. But
what is also in his supplemental are ballistic missiles, other issues
that they are spending money on.
So we have the power of the purse strings. But I can tell you, which
I know that we are all together on and you mentioned, we will not cut
money off to the troops that are on the ground there. But we said,
leading up to the end of the 109th Congress, that we will not defund
the troops that are in harm's way. But no one said anything about
escalating the number of troops, adding more onto it.
So a lot of folks are upset. It is not just Democrats that are upset.
The American people are. And the President is going against a 70-plus
percent approval and heading in a new direction on this issue of Iraq,
and he is still heading in the same direction that he was heading in
prior to the November election. So it is up to us, Congresswoman Brown,
to not only state within the Congressional Record but encourage our
colleagues not only on our side of the aisle but on the Republican side
of the aisle that we have to lead in the way that the American people
want us to lead.
I am encouraged by something, seeing some of the comments by some of
the Republicans about what the President said.
{time} 1630
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. You know, we had a closed-door briefing
yesterday, and the important point that I made is that every Member,
all 435 Members of this House of Representatives have the
responsibility for the security of this country. And I think we have
more of a responsibility than just to give this President a blank
check. And I think we owe it to this country to make sure we get more
of some kind of response other than we are just expanding, and not
really deal with us in a very constructive way.
The second point, and I have just got two quick points, and I have a
plane to catch. On the area of health care, the President talked about
health care, and I am one Member that would vote for it. I believe we
should have universal health care. But you have to, always dealing with
this administration, it is always in the details. Now he is talking
about taking money from public hospitals. And when we say public
hospitals, you have got one, I have got Shands, but you have got
Jackson Memorial. Taking money from public hospitals, that is
unacceptable. That is the only safety net that we have. And so that is
one proposal that shouldn't arrive here, but when it does, it should be
dead on arrival.
And the last point, I was disappointed, and I guess everybody in the
gulf region was disappointed, there was no discussion about the gulf
region, none whatsoever. Nothing about Katrina. Now, the American
people, they saw something with Katrina that they didn't like. Not only
did they see a government that was inept, uncaring, but incompetent,
and yet nothing.
I talked to an 82-year-old lady on Thursday who 3 months before
Katrina, she paid off her house. Paid off her house 3 months before
Katrina. To this day she is homeless and hasen't received a penny from
all of the dollars that we have appropriated. Now, we have a
responsibility to this lady just like we do, we are insisting, that we
put almost $500 billion in Iraq and said that, oh, they don't have to
pay it back. But every dime that we put into New Orleans, we are going
to say they have got to pay it back. I am sure it doesn't have anything
to do that they are people of color.
But I have got to say we have got our challenges. I want to thank all
of you 30-something-plus for your leadership on the floor and keeping
these issues before the American people.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Brown, when you said 30-something-plus, you
looked at me.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then she looked at me.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Well, obviously we have a couple of
Gators here on the floor, and like I said, I just talked to the Gator
network. And so it has nothing to do with age, it has to do with
maturity on the issues. And I want to thank you all for bringing these
issues before the American people.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Brown, before you leave, I just wanted to
say before yielding to Ms. Wasserman Schultz that I am glad that you
came to the floor, because you have been given voice in this.
And I remember being a non-Member of Congress. You served with my
mom; and I was in the senate, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and I were serving
in the Florida Senate. I remember you going out to the mike by the
Cannon Building where C-SPAN had a camera rolling, and it was a press
conference, and you went out along with a number of Members saying that
it is
[[Page H928]]
wrong that we gave the President the authority to go to war; and that
you have been a voice on this issue because you knew that this could
possibly happen, the position that we are in now.
I also want to add, since you said he didn't mention anything about
Katrina, he didn't say anything about veterans. And I know you have
been up front and on target on veteran benefits. We have many from
Florida; I know Mr. Murphy has them from Connecticut. And I think that
it is important that even though, Mr. Speaker, veterans were not
mentioned, victims of Katrina weren't mentioned, we picked up on it.
And we are going to make sure that we continue to do the things that we
need to do.
Thank you, Ms. Brown.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you. And as far as veterans are
concerned, I am the second person on the committee, and I have been
here for over 14 years, and I have been on that committee because I
think it is so important that people that give their most, that we have
got to make sure that we pay them back. And I am concerned that in the
past under this administration, that is where we have cut. We have cut
veterans programs, and they are coming back, and they need everything.
I have gone out to Bethesda, and I am planning that we all go out there
to Bethesda, and every veteran in every room needed casework and
assistance.
So, basically we are not doing our duty, not taking care of those men
and women when they come back wounded after giving their all for this
country. We have got a responsibility in the Constitution, coequal
branches. This is the people's House, and we should speak up and make
sure that we fund programs that will benefit those veterans. Thank you
again for your leadership.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to our colleague, the
gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Brown. And I am so pleased to
join my 30-Something colleagues here this afternoon, our newest 30-
Something colleague from Connecticut Chris Murphy. With our new-found
responsibility, I have been a little tied up the last couple times we
have had this Special Order hour, so I am really pleased to be able to
be with you. And we have some fresh blood and some new dynamics that we
will engage in. It will be really fun to work with you and banter a
little bit.
But I will tell you that this being the day after the President's
State of the Union Address, Mr. Murphy, I was particularly disturbed
listening to the President. The privilege that we have here in this
House, and it was yours for the first time last night, and I remember 2
years ago, I am just 2 years ahead of you in this process, and I
remember the feeling that I had sitting in this Chamber and the awesome
responsibility that I felt on my shoulders being this far from the
President and having the chance to listen to him deliver that address,
and the expectation that I had as a representative of my constituents,
that the expectation that he would say something more than words.
And last year, if you recall, you were in your State legislature when
he delivered last year's State of the Union. He talked about the need
to end America's addiction to foreign oil, and subsequently that turned
out to just be words because he ended up proposing in his budget, and
they actually enacted, a cut in the energy legislation, that this
Republican leadership that is no longer in charge here, they actually
cut the funding to alternative energy, exploring alternative energy
resources.
Now, last night he says the same thing in a different way. And we are
just to the point, why should we expect that there is meaning and
action coming down the pipe behind the words?
On the war in Iraq, I know I have heard from my constituents, and it
is just shocking that after the response from the voters on November 7,
that this President would not get the message that the American people
were sending him. They want a new direction. They want to move the
troops from a combat focus to a training focus, get the Iraqi troops to
stand up on their own so that that country can take care of itself. So
it is just shocking the lack of understanding of his priorities and
where he is on the issues that are most important to people.
On health care, the health care priorities. There are 47 million
people in this country, 3\1/2\ million in Florida, that don't have
health insurance. And his solution to that problem is a tax deduction,
a tiny tax deduction that he thinks will spur people who benefit from
it to take that money and buy health insurance. That just shows a
callous indifference. And you are an expert in health care; that was
your focus. That shows a callous indifference to what the problems that
the uninsured and underinsured are really facing.
You are probably familiar with the death spiral created by insurance
companies where they cordoned off the people who are the most sick.
Some States have adopted guaranteed-issue policies and modified
community rating like we did in Florida so that there were only a few
things that were taken into consideration when rates were set. But for
the most part that is not what people are able to get when buying
health insurance. So the sickest of the sick get cordoned off into a
group; that group is priced out of the market, and then they don't have
the ability to afford that health insurance.
A simple tax deduction is not going to make health insurance
accessible and affordable for that group of people. It is just
unbelievable, Mr. Murphy. And I fail to understand why this President
only seems to keep his own counsel. It is just really unbelievable.
So I will yield to you or to Mr. Meek, but that was my feeling and my
reaction in listening last night. And when I talked to our radio
stations in south Florida this morning, I know the feedback that our
radio hosts were getting was similar.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you for yielding, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz. I think that was the feeling that a lot of us here for our
first State of the Union felt as well. I was able to sit with a lot of
the first-term Members to listen to the speech, and we all left shaking
our heads, because when we went out and campaigned to come to this
body, and when we go back to our districts to talk to people, I mean,
it is very clear that they don't want patchwork solutions when it comes
to health care; they don't want a little tinkering around the edges
when it comes to energy reform. They want bold leadership from
Washington.
It is no small thing for a bunch of people across this country to go
out and cast out long-term incumbents, which is what happened in a lot
of these districts. It takes a lot of courage in order to make that
decision for change. And, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think you are
exactly right that they are looking to us to have that same type of
courage. They are requiring us to take that same type of bold action
that they took by turning over this body into new hands, into new
leadership. And the President's suggestions last night when it came to
health care and when it came to energy policy simply don't measure up.
Let's think about it; 6.8 million people in this country have lost
their health care insurance in the last 6 years. Premiums during that
time have risen 81 percent in the last 6 years while wages stayed flat.
Now, if the President, as you said, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, listened to
counsel besides his own, he would know that a tax deduction doesn't
help the people that don't have insurance because about 50 percent of
the uninsured aren't paying income taxes right now. So the people that
we need to help, the people that right now are clogging up our
emergency rooms, and, as you know, this is not just a matter of doing
the right thing for the uninsured, this is doing the right thing for
all of us who are subsidizing the people who walk into the emergency
rooms, get this extravagantly expensive care simply because they didn't
have the insurance to get them in to have preventative care. The
proposal he unveiled yesterday really, I think, does grave injustice to
those people out there who were struggling with a system that is
fundamentally broken, and it simply isn't going to be fixed around the
edges.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield for 1 second on that
point? Because on the health care issue specifically, the gentlewoman
from Florida talked about being supportive of universal health care.
And, I mean, I am supportive of expanding access to health care to
everyone as well. But our good friends on the other side
[[Page H929]]
of the aisle like to use that as a bogeyman for us and imply that that
means socialized medicine, and that we want to implement this single-
payer system that is going to be government top-down health care.
There are ways to expand access to health care to large populations,
to almost everybody who is uninsured, and then we only have to work
hard towards ensuring that last phase of the population. We can expand
access to health care for all children by expanding the SCHIP program.
We can expand access to health care to more older Americans by simply
expanding the Medicare program and letting people from 50 to 64 years
old buy into that program. Those are bills that were filed when we were
in the minority and that will be filed again and that we will have an
opportunity to able to pursue now that we are past the 100-hour agenda.
So just you having come just out of the State legislature and being a
health care expert, I would just love to hear your thoughts about that.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are exactly
right. I remember standing at a supermarket in my district during the
campaign or maybe a few years before, and a woman who was, I think, 59,
58 years old, who had been laid off, and who understandably was having
trouble finding new employment. It is difficult for older Americans to
find a new job, especially one that has a comprehensive package of
benefits. And she looked at me with this blank face and said, ``Why am
I in this position? Why can I not get health care when I know the
Medicare program is right there? I am willing to pay for it. I am
willing to contribute to it. And yet I can't get access to this program
simply because I have been put into a situation where I can't find a
job or I can't find a job with benefits, and I don't qualify for the
program.''
So there are ways that we can help, as you said, those older
Americans who are on the cusp of being able to qualify for Medicare,
and certainly the millions of children around this country who have no
health care insurance and end up getting sick. I mean, they get sick,
and they come into our emergency rooms to get the care they need. Mr.
Ryan said here the other night, we do have a system of universal
coverage in this country; unfortunately, it is in our emergency rooms
rather than in our doctors' offices and our primary care doctors'
offices.
And maybe just to tie this back to what we were talking about before
when it comes to the war in Iraq. You know, we have an obligation to
our veterans when they come back, and what we have done here over the
past 10 years to the health care system for veterans is a travesty of
justice to the brave men and women who have fought for this country.
I absolutely support moving towards universal coverage. I think you
are right, it doesn't have to be done all at once. In fact, I think the
best proposals before this body are to really take some commonsense
approaches to it. But maybe the first thing we should do is start to
repair some of the damage that we did to the veterans health care
system to make sure that when you volunteer to serve this country
abroad, that when you come back, you are going to get the mental health
care that you need, that you are going to not have to wait in line for
a surgery that you badly need. Maybe that is our first obligation is to
take care of those folks, because in the end we are here to serve
everyone, but we are certainly here to make sure that those people that
fight for us, Mr. Meek, are taken care of. And I would yield to you.
{time} 1645
Mr. MEEK of Florida. All I am going to do is do a close. I know we
have the Web site and all, but I want to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz
because I want to tell you, I am not from Connecticut, but if I was one
of your constituents, I would vote for you. You are good. That is all I
can say.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We had another member of the Florida
delegation. I am honored to be part of the 30-something group, but to
be part of the Florida delegation here today was just as impressive.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I was just saying if I was your constituent I
would vote for you. It is good to have a Member of Congress that is as
well informed into the issues that are facing the constituents and the
American people. I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz because we are going
to be closing out soon.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. One of the things that I
think is important for the Members and other folks to know is we did
this 30-something hour night after night in the minority for the last
several years, and we want folks to know that we are not just shutting
down and becoming complacent and resting on our laurels now that we are
in the majority because there continues to be a need for
accountability, as the State of the Union address demonstrated last
night.
We are going to assert Congress's oversight role, reestablish the
system of checks and balances that was totally absent the last number
of years. We are going to use the 30-something Working Group forum to
be able to do that and also talk about what Democrats are going to do,
implement our agenda, talk about the priorities of the American people.
I am so thrilled that we have expanded our ranks and that we have an
opportunity to interact and dialogue with you. I can tell you that on
election night on November 7, I was cheering very loud that you were
coming to join us in the 110th.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to Mr. Murphy and he is going to
give the Web site out and we will be ready to shut down.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you very much. As I said before,
coming back from the campaign trail I got to watch the three of you
down here, and I think stole a lot of your material. So I am glad to
maybe provide a little bit of material for the next crop of 30-
somethings.
May I do Mr. Ryan's job today?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Please.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. And give out the Web site for the 30-
something Working Group: www.speaker.gov/30something. If you go there,
you will get all the good information that we talked about today and
participate online in the discussion that we have been having here.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, it is an honor to be on the floor with Mr.
Murphy and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Being in the majority brings
about responsibility for all of us. So we have a lot to do. And Mr.
Speaker, we want to thank the Democratic leadership, from the Speaker
to the leader to the whip to the chair and the vice chair for allowing
us to have this Special Order on the Democratic side. It was an honor
addressing the House once again.
____________________